§Why CasetextPricing

Raymond Unutoa v. Interstate Hotels and Resorts, Inc. et al

REPLY In Support MOTION to Remand Case to Los Angeles Superior Court 10

13 Cited authorities

  1. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens

    574 U.S. 81 (2014)   Cited 4,264 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding removal notice need only contain short and plain statement of grounds for court's jurisdiction

  2. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co

    102 F.3d 398 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 1,286 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendants bears the burden to show that removal is proper

  3. Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc.

    243 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (N.D. Cal. 2002)   Cited 152 times
    Holding that Song-Beverly Act's civil penalties should be included in the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction

  4. Coleman v. Estes Exp. Lines, Inc.

    631 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 91 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court may look beyond the allegations of the complaint when deciding a defendant's citizenship under § 1332(d)(cc)

  5. Hernandez v. Towne Park, Ltd.

    CASE NO. CV 12-02972 MMM (JCGx) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2012)   Cited 50 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Hernandez, the plaintiff alleged "regularly" occurring Labor Code violations without alleging the frequency of those violations.

  6. Dukes v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company

    No. CV-09-2197-PHX-NVW (D. Ariz. Jan. 5, 2010)   Cited 47 times
    Noting that "there is disagreement within this circuit as to whether attorney's fees incurred after the date of removal are properly included in the amount in controversy, and concluding that "the better view is that attorneys' fees incurred after the date of removal are not properly included because the amount in controversy is to be determined as of the date of removal[, and that f]uture attorneys' fees are entirely speculative, may be avoided, and are therefore not 'in controversy' at the time of removal"

  7. Marshall v. G2 Secure Staff, LLC

    Case No. 2:14-cv-04322-ODW(MANx) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 14, 2014)   Cited 10 times
    Stating that even where plaintiff's allegations are so non-specific that it would be appropriate to assume a 100 percent violation rate, defendant may not do so "without supporting the assumption with evidence"

  8. Carag v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.

    No. 2:14-cv-00481-JAM-DAD (E.D. Cal. May. 30, 2014)   Cited 3 times

    No. 2:14-cv-00481-JAM-DAD 05-30-2014 CASSANDRA CARAG, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BARNES & NOBLE, INC., a Delaware corporation; BARNES & NOBLE BOOKSELLERS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. JOHN A. MENDEZ ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Cassandra Carag's ("Plaintiff") Motion to Remand (Doc

  9. HAYNES v. EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION

    No. C 10-00372 WHA (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2010)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding sufficient on its face that the two-thirds requirement was met for classes defined to include persons who owned real or residential real property in California

  10. Romo v. Panda Rest. Grp., Inc.

    Case No. CV 12-00996 GAF (OPx) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 7, 2012)   Cited 1 times
    Relying on American Community Survey data for purposes of citizenship and an application of the CAFA exception

  11. Section 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1446   Cited 21,110 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim

  12. Section 226 - Itemized statement of wages

    Cal. Lab. Code § 226   Cited 2,151 times   117 Legal Analyses
    Providing only statutory penalties

  13. Section 512 - Meal periods

    Cal. Lab. Code § 512   Cited 1,084 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Imposing these same meal break rules for all employees unless otherwise exempted